ORDER
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. These two Special Appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. for short “the APGST Act”.
2. The appellant in these two appeals is common but the periods for which assessments are made, are different. Special Appeal No. 28 of 1994 relates to the period from April 1992 to October 1992 and Special Appeal No.29 of 1994 relates to the period from November 1992 to January 1993.
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, by orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue(s), dated June 11, 1980, in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the APGST Act, exempted processing of cereals and pulses
from the tax payable under the APGST Act on the purchases and the sales of the goods made by the categories of industrial units, financed by the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Commission. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is:
“Whether the exemption granted by the said G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue (s), dated June 11, 1980 applies to the cases of the appellant?”
4. The appellant was assessed to tax under the APGST Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru on the turn over for the above said periods. The appeals preferred by the appellant were allowed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Finding the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the orders on January 17, 1994, It is the validity of that order that is assailed in these appeals.
5. Mr. Y. Ratnakar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the scope of the expression “cereals and pulses” should be understood in terms of the enumeration under Section 14 of the APGST Act and the exemption should not be confined only to the items falling under Entry 20 of Schedule III of the APGST Act.
6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes.
7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The expression “cereal” is understood in English language to mean:
“Of com or edible grain, kind(s) of grain used for human food; food made from wheat, maize, or other cereal (usually as break-fast dish)”
For purposes of declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short “the CST Act”) the following ten items are enumerated, viz.,
“(1) Cereals, that is to say
(i)paddy (oryza sativa L),
(ii) rice (oryza sativa L);
(iii) wheat (Triticum vulgare, T.Compactum, T.Sphaerococcum, T,durum,T.aestivum L, T.dicoccum);
(iv) jowar or milo (sorghum vulgare Pers);
(v) bajra(Pennisetum typhoideum L);
(vi) maize (Zea mays D);
(vii) ragi (Eleusine coracana Gaetn);
(viii) kodon (Paspalum scrobiculatum L);
(ix) kutki (Panicum miliare L);
(x) barely (Hordeum vulgare L)”
It may also be noted here that irrespective of the above said cereals enumerated under Section 14 of the CST Act, Section 6 of the APGST Act restricts the scope of the exigibility to the sales tax in two respects, viz.,
(i) that the dealer is liable to tax only at the point of sale or purchase as specified in Schedule III therein; and
(ii) that the rate of tax should be as specified in that Schedule which read with Section 15 of the CST Act should not exceed 4% of the sale or purchase price thereof.
However, the notification in question did not specify the ‘cereals and pulses’ in respect of which exemption is granted. The said notification reads as follows:
“G.O.Ms. No. 2566, Revenue (S), 11th June, 1980 (Vide P.680 of Part I of A.P. Gazette, dated 10-7-1980)
In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 9 of the APGST Act, 1957 (Andhra Pradesh Act VI of 1957) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said Act, the purchase or sales of goods as the case may be made by the categories
of industrial units, financed by the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board and the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, mentioned in the annexure, in connection with their industrial activities.
Provided that the said individual industrial units which make purchases or sale shall be allowed the exemption only if such units arc covered by certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board to the effect that they are financed by the Board or the Commission.
ANNEXURE
SI.No. and Name of the Industry
1. Processing of Cereals and Pulses
2. Village Leather.
3. Cottage Match.
4. Gur and Khandasari.
5. Palm Gur.
6. Non-edible oil and soap (Soap) (Seed Collection)
7. Hand made paper
8. Bee-keeping
9. Village Pottery
10. Fibre.
11. Carpentry and Blacksmithy
12. Lime manufacturing
13. Forest Plants and Fruits for medicinal purposes.
14. Gums.
15. Fruit Processing and Preservation,
16. Cane and Bamboo.”
The exemption is notified for processing of cereals and pulses by the categories of industrial units referred to therein. The question then arises what is meant by the expression “cereals” in the said notification. Obviously the notification meant “cereal” as specified in Entry 20 of Schedule III to the APGST ACT.
We may note here that though Schedule III contains all the ten items specified as cereals in Section 14 of the CST Act, yet they are not taxed at the same rate in Schedule III of the APGST Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that all the items of cereals specified in Schedule III to the APGST Act or Section 14 of the CST Act should be treated alike by granting exemption and that they should be brought within the meaning of cereals for purposes of the notification. The State Legislature treated various categories of cereals differently for purposes of rate of tax and the State Government has extended the benefit of exemption only in respect of such of them which have been included within the meaning of “cereals” in Entry 20 of Schedule III of APGST Act. It is brought to our notice that a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in W.P. No. 19826 of 1996 dated 17-7-1997. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the orders under appeal.
8. The Special Appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs.